DANILO ALUAD, LEONORA ALUAD, DIVINA ALUAD, PROSPERO ALUAD, and CONNIE

ALUAD, petitioners,
vs.
ZENAIDO ALUAD, respondent.

BQ:

Petitioner’s mother, Maria and respondent Zenaido were raised by the childless spouses
Matilde and Crispin. Crispin was the owner of six lots. After his death, Matilde adjudicated the
lots to herself and thereafter, she executed a Deed of Donation of Real Property Inter Vivos in
favor of Maria covering all the six lots. The Deed provided that such “will become effective
upon the death of the Donor, but in the event that the Donee should die before the Donor,
the present donation shall be deemed rescinded. Provided, however, that anytime during the
lifetime of the Donor or anyone of them who should survive, they could use, encumber or
even dispose of any or even all of the parcels of the land.”

Matilde sold one of the lots to Zenaido and subsequently, Matilde executed a last will and
testament devising four (4) of the lots to Maria and the remaining lot to Zenaido. Maria died
a few months after Matilde’s death. Thereafter, Maria’s heirs (herein petitioners) filed before
the RTC a complaint for declaration and recovery of ownership and possession of the two lots
conveyed and donated to Zenaido, alleging that no rights have been transmitted to the latter
because such lots have been previously alienated to them to Maria via the Deed of Donation.
The lower court decided in favor of the petitioners however, CA reversed said decision upon
appeal of Zenaido which held that the Deed of Donation was actually a donation mortis
causa, not inter vivos and as such it had to, but did not, comply with the formalities of a will.
Due to the denial of the petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration, the present Petition for Review
has been filed.

Is the CA correct?

Yes.

One of mortis causa, it having the following characteristics:

(1) It conveys no title or ownership to the transferee before the death of the transferor; or
what amounts to the same thing, that the transferor should retain the ownership (full or
naked) and control of the property while alive; (2) That before the death of the transferor,
the transfer should be revocable by the transferor at will, ad nutum; but revocability may be
provided for indirectly by means of a reserved power in the donor to dispose of the properties
conveyed; and (3) That the transfer should be void if the transferor should survive the
transferee.

The donation being then mortis causa, the formalities of a will should have been observed but
they were not, as it was witnessed by only two, not three or more witnesses following Article
805 of the Civil Code. It is void and transmitted no right to petitioner’s mother. But even
assuming arguendo that the formalities were observed, since it was not probated, no right to
the two lots was transmitted to Maria. Matilde thus validly disposed the lot to Zenaido by her
last will and testament, subject to the qualification that her will must be probated. With
respect to the conveyed lot, the same had been validly sold by Matilde to Zenaido.